What the Nuclear Boosters Don't Tell You

On its surface, Grants doesn’t look like the Gateway to the Nuclear West. Its shuttered buildings, dilapidated store fronts, and overgrown vacant lots arewhat’s left of the promised prosperity from the last uranium boom. To really understand Grants’ and the region’s past and potential future, you’ve got to go below the surface.

From the 1950’s until the mid-80’s Grants was the epicenter of the uranium mining industry in America. The uranium that was used in the atomic bomb that wasdropped
on Nagasaki came from here. Later, the Grants area also gave us the
uranium that ushered in the era of “too cheap to meter” nuclear power.
This is a town that was built on the 1950’s utopian dream of a George Jetson-like
personal hovercraft powered by atomic reactors and endless nearly-free
nuclear generated electricity that would turn the highdesert into aGarden
of Eden. But when the uranium market tanked in the mid-1980’s the
fickle uranium mining companies packed up and left, leaving the local
population jobless, broke and sitting on hundreds of piles of
radioactive and toxic waste.

Uranium mining is rarely talked about in the media, yet it is indispensible to the nuclear fuel chain.

Gallons
of ink have been spilled on the dangers of nuclear power plants and
problems of storing highly poisonous nuclear waste. But the toxic legacy (and equally toxic future) of uranium mining gets little press. And that’s a shame, because it all begins with uranium ore.

Uranium
is the lifeblood of the nuclear industry. It’s the fuel for nuclear
power plants and the raw material for atomic weapons,and
New Mexico is the unfortunate host to one of the largest uranium
deposits in the world. The Grants Mineral Belt stretches from just
west of Albuquerque to the state line with Arizona. The uranium mining industry estimates there are 300 million pounds of recoverable uranium in the area. For industry, this means significant profitsso long as governmental energy policy continues to subsidize nuclear power (without government largesse, the entire nuclear industry would collapse).

On the other hand, if history is any teacher – and it should be – the presumed impending "nuclear renaissance" and "uranium boom" means hard times for communities that will host it. Sure, the industry might bring some short term tax revenue and jobs, but the costs to that communitywill be substantial. After the ore is removed, processed and sold, the profit motive disappears and companies (and complicit government agencies) shortchange clean up to save money on what
is a liability on the corporate balance sheet. Conventional deep shaft
and open pit mines will result in huge amounts of waste rock with residual radioactive materials and their decay products which are unlikely to be remediated or cleaned upto
any acceptable standard. It will also result in milling operations
that will leave behind massive tailings piles that will continue to
contaminate soil, air and groundwater for generations.

The more modern in situ leach or ISL mining is no better. Companies use ISL technology to release uranium ore from its surrounding rock matrix by injecting chemicals into a uranium ore bearing aquifer through a series of hundreds of wells. Left
undisturbed, uranium remains in long, thin, discreet ore deposits
within an aquifer and water even just feet away can be suitable for
drinking. However, once the chemicals react with the uranium ore, it’s freed
from the surrounding rock, and the resulting toxic soup is drawn to the
surface by another series of wells. Problem is, most of the uranium
ore that is amenable to ISL mining is also located in aquifers that are
either currently used as drinking water supplies or have water quality
good enough to be used for
drinking water in the future. And the clean-up record for ISL mining
is just as disgraceful as that of conventional mining. A recent survey
of ISL mining in south Texas revealed that Texas regulatory agencies
regularly relaxed groundwater restoration standards for uranium mining
companies because these companies could not clean the water to pre-mining groundwater quality. Even then, companies were rarely able to meet the relaxed standard. As a result, millions of gallons of groundwater are contaminated with radioactive and toxic heavy metals for centuries, if not millennia.

The people in Grants, N.M.
and the rest of the mineral belt deserve to be able to make a decent
living. But they shouldn’t be forced to choose between making a living
and their health, environment, or water supply. Many in these
communities see a different future for themselves and their neighbors,
despite the pressure from the uranium mining industry to mine the ore.
This future has nothing to do with the cynically labeled “clean” nuclear power. It involves
locally generated and distributed renewable energy. It involves
sustainable agriculture. It involves ecotourism and a diversity of
economic development engines that will sustain the community for
generations, not just for 20 or fewer years. Most important, it involves leaving the uranium where it belongs – untouched, in the ground.

More from Energy & Industry

The author is quite right about the problems associated with uranium mining. However, he is WRONG when he states that uranium mining is essential for nuclear power.

Fast breeder reactors can use the large amounts of existing nuclear waste as fuel. Moreover, fast breeders can use both unenriched natural uranium and depleted uranium as fuel. In fact, there is currently enough nuclear waste and depleted uranium available to last for centuries without mining any more uranium, even if we generate all of our electricity with nuclear plants. Also, reactors can use thorium as fuel, and thorium is several times more abundant than uranium.

To stop the mining of uranium, we should insist on the use of fast breeder reactors to generate power and halt the building of new pressurized water thermal reactors.

I certainly agree with the author's position about mining uranium. But let us not overlook the fact that nuclear power does not require any more mining of uranium.

Afraid you'll loose or what?

Ron

Dec 20, 2009 04:18 PM

So Eric,
What the hell is the problem, why the lip flapping?
If they drink it as you claim, then the water is protected by the SDWA.
End of story.